Opinion
2:19-cv-00722-JAD-NJK
11-04-2021
DAVID BURNS, Plaintiff, v. M.D. HANF, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
[Docket Nos. 35, 36]
Nancy J. Koppe United States Magistrate Judge
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. Docket No. 35. Plaintiff simultaneously filed a motion seeking oral argument. Docket No. 36. The Court has considered Plaintiff's motions and Defendants' response. Docket Nos. 35, 36, 37. No. reply was filed. See Docket. The motion is properly resolved without a hearing. See LR 78-1. For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction be DENIED.
As a result, Plaintiff's pending motion for oral argument on this matter, Docket No. 36, is DENIED as moot.
On October 28, 2020, the Court issued a screening order permitting Plaintiff to proceed with an Eighth Amendment claim against Defendants Wolf, Pillsbury, Martin, and Hanf. Docket No. 9 at 6. The Court found that Plaintiff stated a colorable claim for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs based on his allegations that Defendants knew he had a fractured finger and failed to treat his fractured finger. Id. Plaintiff now seeks a preliminary injunction in the form of a Court order requiring Northern Nevada Correctional Center to allow him one hour of in-person computer research time each day in the law library and up to 20 case checkouts each day. Docket No. 35 at 2, 5. 1
Courts can grant preliminary injunctive relief pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65. These remedies are “extraordinary and drastic…[and] never awarded as of right[.]” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689-90 (2008). “When moving for a preliminary injunction . . . the plaintiff must make several showings: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief; (3) the equities balance in his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest.” Thomas v. Cox, 2018 WL 5904499, at *1 (D. Nev. Oct. 24, 2018) (citing Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008)). In the Ninth Circuit, courts apply a “sliding scale approach, ” where “the elements of the preliminary injunction test are balanced, so that a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 2011). Further, “a more stringent standard applies where a party seeks affirmative relief.” Odoms v. Aranas, 2017 WL 3317416, at *2 (D. Nev. Aug. 3, 2017). “[M]andatory preliminary relief is only warranted where both the facts and the law clearly favor the moving party and ‘extreme or very serious damage will result.'” Thomas, 2018 WL 5904499, at *1 (quoting Anderson v. United States, 612 F.2d 1112, 1115 (9th Cir. 1979)).
When the relief sought relates to prison conditions, any injunctive relief must be narrowly drawn, extend no further than necessary to correct the harm, and consist of the least intrusive means necessary to correct the harm. Prison Litigation Reform Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(2). Courts must “give substantial weight to any adverse impact on public safety or the operation of a criminal justice system caused by the preliminary relief.” Id. See also Gilmore v. People of the State of California, 220 F.3d 987, 998-99 (9th Cir. 2000). This analysis applies to any relief other than compensatory monetary damages. Id. at 999.
In addition to these requirements, any request must show “a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2015). The person seeking relief must demonstrate a “sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a motion for injunctive relief and the claim set forth in the underlying complaint itself.” Id. (internal 2 citations omitted). Without a sufficient nexus, “the district court lacks authority to grant the relief requested.” Id.
In the instant motion, Plaintiff dedicates much of his argument to explaining how the requested relief is necessary because his inability to access the law library as he desires directly impedes his First Amendment right of access to the courts. See Docket No. 35 at 2-4. However, the only claim Plaintiff properly has before the Court is his Eighth Amendment violation claim. See Docket No. 9 at 6. Plaintiffs motion fails to draw any nexus between the claims raised in his motion for injunctive relief and his Eighth Amendment claim. Without any nexus, the Court would exceed its jurisdiction in granting the requested relief
In any event, Defendants submit that Plaintiff already has adequate access to the law library. Docket No. 37 at 5-6. Plaintiff has not contradicted this assertion.
Accordingly, IT IS RECOMMENDED that Plaintiffs motion for a preliminary injunction, Docket No. 35, be DENIED without prejudice. 3